Boat people in land grab

BOAT dwellers have laid claim to an Oxford riverbank by roping it off and declaring it their own.

A group calling themselves “Friends of Castle Mill Stream” have taken over a 100-yard stretch of land and have said it is now their private property.

But Jericho residents have said it amounts to an “annexation.”

The boating group moored five boats on the banks of Castle Mill Stream, running alongside the Oxford Canal, down a 100-yard stretch opposite St Barnabas Church.

One of the boats

Notices have been posted, which read: “This community organisation is created to make good a poor situation. Approximately 30,000 live aboard their boats in the UK.

“Mooring spaces are mostly limited to those who can afford high impact environmental marinas.
“[We] claim this land given a boundary here as private land by claiming it from an unregistered classification [sic].
“We ask you to take care for yourself and others as the boundary and river can be a hazard. If fishing or visiting please be careful and considerate. The law requires a private property notice. You have just read it.”.
Angela Aristidou, of Rewley Road, said the area was a popular spot for residents to relax.
The 31-year-old, who is a researcher at Cambridge University, said: “This kind of behaviour is selfish. If everyone acted this way there would be no banks for my daughter to throw stones from.
“They are in a central part of Oxford and are used every day by residents. Children play there, people go fishing, couples sit to relax after work.
“Claiming it as private property means only a few can enjoy it.
“The counter-culture argument they seem to be making does not change the fact they have just taken a public asset.”
Another resident, who lives by the site and asked not to be named, said she regularly walks along the towpath.
The woman, who has lived in Jericho for 66 years, said: “There are two elderly narrowboats which have been there for ages, but these [five] new boats have only recently arrived. It looks like they are staking a claim so they can stay moored there. I’ve never seen it happen before and I’ve never heard of their group either.”Oxford City Council Jericho and Osney ward councillor Susanna Pressel said she had referred the matter to the Unlawfully Moored Boats Enforcement Group (UMBEG) and the Canal & River Trust, after residents complained.
The trust is responsible for the waterway, but boating liaison manager Matthew Symonds told Ms Pressel the land was unregistered.
He said: “I have been advised that the trust should not remove [the roping] at this stage as it may complicate the matter of land ownership. The wording on the signage is of little legal merit and does not indicate that the boaters have rights to the unregistered land.
“Please be assured that the trust is progressing action to address the issue.”
Trust spokeswoman Sarah Rudy said: “We are aware of the actions of some of the boaters moored at Castle Mill Stream and are working with local groups and businesses to resolve the issue.
“We are trying to establish who has responsibility of this small stretch of land and would therefore be required to take action against these boaters.”
The Land Registry describes unregistered land as “a complex area of law.”
Its website says: “All land is owned by someone.
“The true owner of the land may take legal proceedings and in relevant cases may include claims for trespass and even criminal damage. If the true owner is successful, the squatter may be responsible for all legal costs.”
But it is possible to claim unregistered land over a minimum of 12 years “if you have actually done things with the land, such as fenced and occupied it without permission”.
The Oxford Mail visited the site twice, but there was no one present to comment.

Comments

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.

[quote][p][bold]Miss Cynical[/bold] wrote:
This drives me insane.
I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.
I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.
Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?
I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.[/p][/quote]Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.thomashenry

Miss Cynical wrote…

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.

Score: 0

[deleted]
11:09am Wed 18 Jun 14

[deleted]

no better than travellers in my opinion.. get the police and baliffs inyabbadabbadoo256

no better than travellers in my opinion.. get the police and baliffs in

Score: 2

[deleted]
11:10am Wed 18 Jun 14

[deleted]

These “Boat People” are parasites in the same way that those who squatted along the Oxford Canal and then winged and wined until the council gave in and let them stay are and now the tow path is like a pigssty. The Government yet again just sits on their hands and does nothing about those who think they have the right to just take over the river bank. There are boats scattered round the river near Abingdon one at least of which has been there for over two years and nothing is being done about them.BML

These “Boat People” are parasites in the same way that those who squatted along the Oxford Canal and then winged and wined until the council gave in and let them stay are and now the tow path is like a pigssty. The Government yet again just sits on their hands and does nothing about those who think they have the right to just take over the river bank. There are boats scattered round the river near Abingdon one at least of which has been there for over two years and nothing is being done about them.

Score: 7

xenarthra
11:13am Wed 18 Jun 14

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote…

no better than travellers in my opinion.. get the police and baliffs in

The police will only be interested if a crime has been committed. There's no evidence of that here. I

f the owner of the land can be traced, then that owner could evict the squatters, but otherwise there's not a lot that anyone else can do about it. If they maintain their adverse possession for 12 years, they get to claim the land as their own. That's the law. The risk they are taking is that the true owner comes forward and sues them for any damage they may have done.

The local residents who like to walk along the river bank are themselves trespassing, so have no particular moral high ground.

[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote:
no better than travellers in my opinion.. get the police and baliffs in[/p][/quote]The police will only be interested if a crime has been committed. There's no evidence of that here. I
f the owner of the land can be traced, then that owner could evict the squatters, but otherwise there's not a lot that anyone else can do about it. If they maintain their adverse possession for 12 years, they get to claim the land as their own. That's the law. The risk they are taking is that the true owner comes forward and sues them for any damage they may have done.
The local residents who like to walk along the river bank are themselves trespassing, so have no particular moral high ground.xenarthra

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote…

no better than travellers in my opinion.. get the police and baliffs in

The police will only be interested if a crime has been committed. There's no evidence of that here. I

f the owner of the land can be traced, then that owner could evict the squatters, but otherwise there's not a lot that anyone else can do about it. If they maintain their adverse possession for 12 years, they get to claim the land as their own. That's the law. The risk they are taking is that the true owner comes forward and sues them for any damage they may have done.

The local residents who like to walk along the river bank are themselves trespassing, so have no particular moral high ground.

Score: 10

anonim
11:51am Wed 18 Jun 14

The bigger picture here is the privatisation of the Land Registry Office.

I've heard a not for profit company limited by guarantee is in the process of formation that shall reach out to the local communities.

The bigger picture here is the privatisation of the Land Registry Office.
http://epe​titions
.di​rect.gov.u​k
/petition​s/60616
http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/2014
/may/05/land-registr
y-privatisation-plan
s-revealed
I've heard a not for profit company limited by guarantee is in the process of formation that shall reach out to the local communities.anonim

The bigger picture here is the privatisation of the Land Registry Office.

I've heard a not for profit company limited by guarantee is in the process of formation that shall reach out to the local communities.

Score: 1

yabbadabbadoo256
12:02pm Wed 18 Jun 14

anonim wrote…

The bigger picture here is the privatisation of the Land Registry Office.

http://epe​titions

.di​rect.gov.u​k

/petition​s/60616

http://www.theguardi

an.com/politics/2014

/may/05/land-registr

y-privatisation-plan

s-revealed

I've heard a not for profit company limited by guarantee is in the process of formation that shall reach out to the local communities.

nope the bigger picture is whether or not these "Boat people" pay their rates, Council Tax, Mooring fee's, Boat tax etc.. I bet they dont

[quote][p][bold]anonim[/bold] wrote:
The bigger picture here is the privatisation of the Land Registry Office.
http://epe​titions
.di​rect.gov.u​k
/petition​s/60616
http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/2014
/may/05/land-registr
y-privatisation-plan
s-revealed
I've heard a not for profit company limited by guarantee is in the process of formation that shall reach out to the local communities.[/p][/quote]nope the bigger picture is whether or not these "Boat people" pay their rates, Council Tax, Mooring fee's, Boat tax etc.. I bet they dontyabbadabbadoo256

anonim wrote…

The bigger picture here is the privatisation of the Land Registry Office.

http://epe​titions

.di​rect.gov.u​k

/petition​s/60616

http://www.theguardi

an.com/politics/2014

/may/05/land-registr

y-privatisation-plan

s-revealed

I've heard a not for profit company limited by guarantee is in the process of formation that shall reach out to the local communities.

nope the bigger picture is whether or not these "Boat people" pay their rates, Council Tax, Mooring fee's, Boat tax etc.. I bet they dont

Score: 7

[deleted]
12:55pm Wed 18 Jun 14

[deleted]

Boat People or 'Water-Pikeys'.## Nonny Mouse ##

Boat People or 'Water-Pikeys'.

Score: 2

anonim
1:17pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Nationally central government plans privatisation of the land registry.
Locally boaters can't pay council tax with out a residential address.

Nationally central government plans privatisation of the land registry.
Locally boaters can't pay council tax with out a residential address.anonim

Nationally central government plans privatisation of the land registry.
Locally boaters can't pay council tax with out a residential address.

Score: 4

thomashenry
4:50pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.[/p][/quote]Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.thomashenry

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

Score: 10

yotday
1:44pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Many people who live in boats pay council tax and canal or river licenses, and have the right to be on the canal or river. Granted, some don't, but the vast majority do. I've seen stories about people claiming single-occupancy council tax rebates but I don't say "house-dwellers are all scroungers" because it's ridiculous. I regularly see cars run a red light, but I can tell the difference between a couple of car drivers and all car drivers.

Most boat-dwellers pay very high canal license fees. Oxford City Council / UMBEG have a duty to provide facilities to boaters. Instead they seem to be at war. It makes me ashamed to pay my council tax when I see what the council is up to.

This may or may not be a land-grab but please keep your prejudices and bigotry in check.

Many people who live in boats pay council tax and canal or river licenses, and have the right to be on the canal or river. Granted, some don't, but the vast majority do. I've seen stories about people claiming single-occupancy council tax rebates but I don't say "house-dwellers are all scroungers" because it's ridiculous. I regularly see cars run a red light, but I can tell the difference between a couple of car drivers and all car drivers.
Most boat-dwellers pay very high canal license fees. Oxford City Council / UMBEG have a duty to provide facilities to boaters. Instead they seem to be at war. It makes me ashamed to pay my council tax when I see what the council is up to.
This may or may not be a land-grab but please keep your prejudices and bigotry in check.yotday

Many people who live in boats pay council tax and canal or river licenses, and have the right to be on the canal or river. Granted, some don't, but the vast majority do. I've seen stories about people claiming single-occupancy council tax rebates but I don't say "house-dwellers are all scroungers" because it's ridiculous. I regularly see cars run a red light, but I can tell the difference between a couple of car drivers and all car drivers.

Most boat-dwellers pay very high canal license fees. Oxford City Council / UMBEG have a duty to provide facilities to boaters. Instead they seem to be at war. It makes me ashamed to pay my council tax when I see what the council is up to.

This may or may not be a land-grab but please keep your prejudices and bigotry in check.

Score: 8

thomashenry
2:45pm Wed 18 Jun 14

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote…

no better than travellers in my opinion.. get the police and baliffs in

Get the Police in for what?

[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote:
no better than travellers in my opinion.. get the police and baliffs in[/p][/quote]Get the Police in for what?thomashenry

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote…

no better than travellers in my opinion.. get the police and baliffs in

Get the Police in for what?

Score: 6

[deleted]
4:35pm Wed 18 Jun 14

[deleted]

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.Sandy Wimpole-Smythe

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Score: -1

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
5:13pm Wed 18 Jun 14

thomashenry wrote…

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?

[quote][p][bold]thomashenry[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.[/p][/quote]Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.[/p][/quote]So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?Sandy Wimpole-Smythe

thomashenry wrote…

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?

Score: 3

yotday
5:43pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

thomashenry wrote…

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?

It's not either or.

I don't think that people should fence off common land. I also don't think that boats should be set adrift in retribution, because it's a very serious act.

If you are thinking of doing this, "Sandy Wimpole-Smythe", read this first:

[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]thomashenry[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.[/p][/quote]Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.[/p][/quote]So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?[/p][/quote]It's not either or.
I don't think that people should fence off common land. I also don't think that boats should be set adrift in retribution, because it's a very serious act.
If you are thinking of doing this, "Sandy Wimpole-Smythe", read this first:
http://www.ybw.com/n
ews/motorboats/53651
8/man-faces-jail-aft
er-deliberately-cutt
ing-friend-s-boat-ad
riftyotday

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

thomashenry wrote…

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?

It's not either or.

I don't think that people should fence off common land. I also don't think that boats should be set adrift in retribution, because it's a very serious act.

If you are thinking of doing this, "Sandy Wimpole-Smythe", read this first:

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?

It's not either or.

I don't think that people should fence off common land. I also don't think that boats should be set adrift in retribution, because it's a very serious act.

If you are thinking of doing this, "Sandy Wimpole-Smythe", read this first:

http://www.ybw.com/n

ews/motorboats/53651

8/man-faces-jail-aft

er-deliberately-cutt

ing-friend-s-boat-ad

rift

How long did it take you to google that, I was having a joke you on the other really need to get out more.

[quote][p][bold]yotday[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]thomashenry[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.[/p][/quote]Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.[/p][/quote]So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?[/p][/quote]It's not either or.
I don't think that people should fence off common land. I also don't think that boats should be set adrift in retribution, because it's a very serious act.
If you are thinking of doing this, "Sandy Wimpole-Smythe", read this first:
http://www.ybw.com/n
ews/motorboats/53651
8/man-faces-jail-aft
er-deliberately-cutt
ing-friend-s-boat-ad
rift[/p][/quote]How long did it take you to google that, I was having a joke you on the other really need to get out more.Sandy Wimpole-Smythe

yotday wrote…

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

thomashenry wrote…

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?

It's not either or.

I don't think that people should fence off common land. I also don't think that boats should be set adrift in retribution, because it's a very serious act.

If you are thinking of doing this, "Sandy Wimpole-Smythe", read this first:

http://www.ybw.com/n

ews/motorboats/53651

8/man-faces-jail-aft

er-deliberately-cutt

ing-friend-s-boat-ad

rift

How long did it take you to google that, I was having a joke you on the other really need to get out more.

Score: -4

mytaxes
5:57pm Wed 18 Jun 14

I walk along the towpath most days with my dog. Most people walk and sit on the canalside not the Castle Mill Stream side so I am surprised that many have noticed the boats. I am not sure why the lady wants her child to throw stones in the stream, perhaps to hit the ducks? The Labour councillor seems to be anti boat as previously she tried to get the moored boats on the Thames moved even although there was no disturbance, mess or anti social behaviour from the boat owners. Isn't it strange that people come to live near the canal or river and object to moored boats.

I walk along the towpath most days with my dog. Most people walk and sit on the canalside not the Castle Mill Stream side so I am surprised that many have noticed the boats. I am not sure why the lady wants her child to throw stones in the stream, perhaps to hit the ducks? The Labour councillor seems to be anti boat as previously she tried to get the moored boats on the Thames moved even although there was no disturbance, mess or anti social behaviour from the boat owners. Isn't it strange that people come to live near the canal or river and object to moored boats.mytaxes

I walk along the towpath most days with my dog. Most people walk and sit on the canalside not the Castle Mill Stream side so I am surprised that many have noticed the boats. I am not sure why the lady wants her child to throw stones in the stream, perhaps to hit the ducks? The Labour councillor seems to be anti boat as previously she tried to get the moored boats on the Thames moved even although there was no disturbance, mess or anti social behaviour from the boat owners. Isn't it strange that people come to live near the canal or river and object to moored boats.

Score: 17

[deleted]
6:03pm Wed 18 Jun 14

[deleted]

[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yotday[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]thomashenry[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.[/p][/quote]Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.[/p][/quote]So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?[/p][/quote]It's not either or.
I don't think that people should fence off common land. I also don't think that boats should be set adrift in retribution, because it's a very serious act.
If you are thinking of doing this, "Sandy Wimpole-Smythe", read this first:
http://www.ybw.com/n
ews/motorboats/53651
8/man-faces-jail-aft
er-deliberately-cutt
ing-friend-s-boat-ad
rift[/p][/quote]How long did it take you to google that, I was having a joke you on the other really need to get out more.[/p][/quote]Around 30 seconds' search in all. No bother.
Scroll up. Read the comments.
"Boat People or 'Water-Pikeys'."
"no better than travellers"
If they were made about women, or people of a certain race, or whatever group of people you want to choose, it would be unacceptable. You might even find it offensive.
I live on a boat and, as I saw people making bigoted comments about people who live on boats, I thought I'd bring some balance to the minority-bashing.
Here's a very funny video about "it was only a joke". Give it a watch.
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=K7CnMQ4L
9Pc
Anyway, you know what they say about arguing with people on the Internet. I'm out.yotday

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

yotday wrote…

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

thomashenry wrote…

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?

It's not either or.

I don't think that people should fence off common land. I also don't think that boats should be set adrift in retribution, because it's a very serious act.

If you are thinking of doing this, "Sandy Wimpole-Smythe", read this first:

http://www.ybw.com/n

ews/motorboats/53651

8/man-faces-jail-aft

er-deliberately-cutt

ing-friend-s-boat-ad

rift

How long did it take you to google that, I was having a joke you on the other really need to get out more.

Around 30 seconds' search in all. No bother.

Scroll up. Read the comments.

"Boat People or 'Water-Pikeys'."

"no better than travellers"

If they were made about women, or people of a certain race, or whatever group of people you want to choose, it would be unacceptable. You might even find it offensive.

I live on a boat and, as I saw people making bigoted comments about people who live on boats, I thought I'd bring some balance to the minority-bashing.

Here's a very funny video about "it was only a joke". Give it a watch.

https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=K7CnMQ4L
9Pc

Anyway, you know what they say about arguing with people on the Internet. I'm out.

Score: -2

lostfreedom
6:34pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Not surprised to see the Oxford Mail 'boater-bashing' again. The last comment in this despicable article claims there was 'no-one around to comment'. Not strictly true - what it means is they couldn't find an illiterate, druggie, half-wit to misquote and 'colour' the article in order to garner support for their fascistic point of view.

The Oxford Mail is certainly not interested in balanced reporting; or in well-reasoned arguments presenting little-known facts;or in reporting legitimate opposition to a situation deliberately contrived by Oxford City Council, Oxford University Estates and the Environment Agency. They consistently refuse to publish the other side of the story - I even went as far as complaining to the Press Complaints Commission about biased and propagandist reporting.

We have a disguised form of Nazi-style ethnic cleansing perpetrated by these three entities in collusion. There is a truckload of proof: legal advice taken by myself supports this view: Liberty agreed that there is a human rights case to answer.

What is happening in the mill-stream is the latest in a long, long line of protests by (perfectly legitimate) boat-dwellers opposed to the relentless destruction of their lifestyle (and they ARE entitled to live as they please), and abusive treatment by the authorities desperate to avoid duty of care to tax-paying members of the community. They have been forced into that situation - they, and I are not going to quietly disappear. Land grab? Oxford University Estates would know all about that...

I make **** sure sure everyone I meet knows about the Oxford Mail and what it supports. Hopefully their pathetic circulation will dwindle to nothing.

Not surprised to see the Oxford Mail 'boater-bashing' again. The last comment in this despicable article claims there was 'no-one around to comment'. Not strictly true - what it means is they couldn't find an illiterate, druggie, half-wit to misquote and 'colour' the article in order to garner support for their fascistic point of view.
The Oxford Mail is certainly not interested in balanced reporting; or in well-reasoned arguments presenting little-known facts;or in reporting legitimate opposition to a situation deliberately contrived by Oxford City Council, Oxford University Estates and the Environment Agency. They consistently refuse to publish the other side of the story - I even went as far as complaining to the Press Complaints Commission about biased and propagandist reporting.
We have a disguised form of Nazi-style ethnic cleansing perpetrated by these three entities in collusion. There is a truckload of proof: legal advice taken by myself supports this view: Liberty agreed that there is a human rights case to answer.
What is happening in the mill-stream is the latest in a long, long line of protests by (perfectly legitimate) boat-dwellers opposed to the relentless destruction of their lifestyle (and they ARE entitled to live as they please), and abusive treatment by the authorities desperate to avoid duty of care to tax-paying members of the community. They have been forced into that situation - they, and I are not going to quietly disappear. Land grab? Oxford University Estates would know all about that...
I make **** sure sure everyone I meet knows about the Oxford Mail and what it supports. Hopefully their pathetic circulation will dwindle to nothing.lostfreedom

Not surprised to see the Oxford Mail 'boater-bashing' again. The last comment in this despicable article claims there was 'no-one around to comment'. Not strictly true - what it means is they couldn't find an illiterate, druggie, half-wit to misquote and 'colour' the article in order to garner support for their fascistic point of view.

The Oxford Mail is certainly not interested in balanced reporting; or in well-reasoned arguments presenting little-known facts;or in reporting legitimate opposition to a situation deliberately contrived by Oxford City Council, Oxford University Estates and the Environment Agency. They consistently refuse to publish the other side of the story - I even went as far as complaining to the Press Complaints Commission about biased and propagandist reporting.

We have a disguised form of Nazi-style ethnic cleansing perpetrated by these three entities in collusion. There is a truckload of proof: legal advice taken by myself supports this view: Liberty agreed that there is a human rights case to answer.

What is happening in the mill-stream is the latest in a long, long line of protests by (perfectly legitimate) boat-dwellers opposed to the relentless destruction of their lifestyle (and they ARE entitled to live as they please), and abusive treatment by the authorities desperate to avoid duty of care to tax-paying members of the community. They have been forced into that situation - they, and I are not going to quietly disappear. Land grab? Oxford University Estates would know all about that...

I make **** sure sure everyone I meet knows about the Oxford Mail and what it supports. Hopefully their pathetic circulation will dwindle to nothing.

Score: -3

deedee444
6:43pm Wed 18 Jun 14

The simple solution is to rope ya own bit of land off so the boatie tramps will have to cross "your" land to access "their" land......it's commonly called a "ransom" strip .............. don't forget ya little notice tho ;) ....... that should flumux the planners and council LOL!!

The simple solution is to rope ya own bit of land off so the boatie tramps will have to cross "your" land to access "their" land......it's commonly called a "ransom" strip .............. don't forget ya little notice tho ;) ....... that should flumux the planners and council LOL!!deedee444

The simple solution is to rope ya own bit of land off so the boatie tramps will have to cross "your" land to access "their" land......it's commonly called a "ransom" strip .............. don't forget ya little notice tho ;) ....... that should flumux the planners and council LOL!!

Score: 6

John Lamb
7:18pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Lots of property developers and house owners use this land-grabbing action all the time.

Lots of property developers and house owners use this land-grabbing action all the time.John Lamb

Lots of property developers and house owners use this land-grabbing action all the time.

Score: 4

Miss Cynical
8:28pm Wed 18 Jun 14

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

This drives me insane.
I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.
I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.
Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?
I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.Miss Cynical

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Score: 5

train passenger
9:20pm Wed 18 Jun 14

It's a bit of both really, everyone should have the right to housing but this isn't the way to get it done. Incidentally we know nothing about the people on these boats and their housing needs, for all I know they could a) be millionaires or b) otherwise be homeless.

It's a bit of both really, everyone should have the right to housing but this isn't the way to get it done. Incidentally we know nothing about the people on these boats and their housing needs, for all I know they could a) be millionaires or b) otherwise be homeless.train passenger

It's a bit of both really, everyone should have the right to housing but this isn't the way to get it done. Incidentally we know nothing about the people on these boats and their housing needs, for all I know they could a) be millionaires or b) otherwise be homeless.

Score: 2

BML
9:41pm Wed 18 Jun 14

The word "parasites" comes to mind but they are only acting as the people who squatted on the Oxford Canal did some years ago and then winged and wined when the council attempted to move them. There are now stretches of that canal that are in an absolute mess. In the river adjacent to Abingdon there are many boats moored without permission one in particular by the marina has been there for over two years and no one does a thing about it,

The word "parasites" comes to mind but they are only acting as the people who squatted on the Oxford Canal did some years ago and then winged and wined when the council attempted to move them. There are now stretches of that canal that are in an absolute mess. In the river adjacent to Abingdon there are many boats moored without permission one in particular by the marina has been there for over two years and no one does a thing about it,BML

The word "parasites" comes to mind but they are only acting as the people who squatted on the Oxford Canal did some years ago and then winged and wined when the council attempted to move them. There are now stretches of that canal that are in an absolute mess. In the river adjacent to Abingdon there are many boats moored without permission one in particular by the marina has been there for over two years and no one does a thing about it,

Score: 0

Lord Palmerstone
6:18am Thu 19 Jun 14

"I make **** sure sure everyone I meet knows about the Oxford Mail and what it supports. Hopefully their pathetic circulation will dwindle to nothing"
But then no one at all would inadvertently read your "thoughts" and since you don't sound like someone we'd hang around to hear, the story of your oppression would never be broadcast.
I suppose it's better that this lot should be out of the way a bit and not begging or flogging the BI, but not a lot better.

"I make **** sure sure everyone I meet knows about the Oxford Mail and what it supports. Hopefully their pathetic circulation will dwindle to nothing"
But then no one at all would inadvertently read your "thoughts" and since you don't sound like someone we'd hang around to hear, the story of your oppression would never be broadcast.
I suppose it's better that this lot should be out of the way a bit and not begging or flogging the BI, but not a lot better.Lord Palmerstone

"I make **** sure sure everyone I meet knows about the Oxford Mail and what it supports. Hopefully their pathetic circulation will dwindle to nothing"
But then no one at all would inadvertently read your "thoughts" and since you don't sound like someone we'd hang around to hear, the story of your oppression would never be broadcast.
I suppose it's better that this lot should be out of the way a bit and not begging or flogging the BI, but not a lot better.

Score: 4

Lord Palmerstone
4:43pm Thu 19 Jun 14

xenarthra wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa

ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?

Indeed, they would have to show that they dealt with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to, for 12 years, and that no one else has done so (unless they transfer their rights to them). But encouraging others to trespass on the same land is perhaps not the best way to go about things. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not possible to trespass on land from which no man has the right to exclude one.

[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa
ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?[/p][/quote]Indeed, they would have to show that they dealt with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to, for 12 years, and that no one else has done so (unless they transfer their rights to them). But encouraging others to trespass on the same land is perhaps not the best way to go about things. Two wrongs don't make a right.[/p][/quote]Not possible to trespass on land from which no man has the right to exclude one.Lord Palmerstone

xenarthra wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa

ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?

Indeed, they would have to show that they dealt with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to, for 12 years, and that no one else has done so (unless they transfer their rights to them). But encouraging others to trespass on the same land is perhaps not the best way to go about things. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not possible to trespass on land from which no man has the right to exclude one.

Score: 5

BML
9:53am Thu 19 Jun 14

From your choice of title I see that your a man of the people.

From your choice of title I see that your a man of the people.BML

From your choice of title I see that your a man of the people.

Score: 3

thomashenry
10:14am Thu 19 Jun 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

thomashenry wrote…

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?

I don't agree with it, but it's not dangerous criminal damage, as was being encouraged by the initial poster.

[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]thomashenry[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote:
All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.[/p][/quote]Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.[/p][/quote]So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?[/p][/quote]I don't agree with it, but it's not dangerous criminal damage, as was being encouraged by the initial poster.thomashenry

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

thomashenry wrote…

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote…

All you need is a sharp knife and a dark night and the boat owners will awaken to their new moorings.

Incitement to commit a crime? Nice. The comments pages of the OM really are populated by the dregs.

So barring others including local residents from using what is in effect public land is OK in your eyes is it ?

I don't agree with it, but it's not dangerous criminal damage, as was being encouraged by the initial poster.

Score: 3

xenarthra
10:14am Thu 19 Jun 14

lostfreedom wrote…

Not surprised to see the Oxford Mail 'boater-bashing' again. The last comment in this despicable article claims there was 'no-one around to comment'. Not strictly true - what it means is they couldn't find an illiterate, druggie, half-wit to misquote and 'colour' the article in order to garner support for their fascistic point of view.

The Oxford Mail is certainly not interested in balanced reporting; or in well-reasoned arguments presenting little-known facts;or in reporting legitimate opposition to a situation deliberately contrived by Oxford City Council, Oxford University Estates and the Environment Agency. They consistently refuse to publish the other side of the story - I even went as far as complaining to the Press Complaints Commission about biased and propagandist reporting.

We have a disguised form of Nazi-style ethnic cleansing perpetrated by these three entities in collusion. There is a truckload of proof: legal advice taken by myself supports this view: Liberty agreed that there is a human rights case to answer.

What is happening in the mill-stream is the latest in a long, long line of protests by (perfectly legitimate) boat-dwellers opposed to the relentless destruction of their lifestyle (and they ARE entitled to live as they please), and abusive treatment by the authorities desperate to avoid duty of care to tax-paying members of the community. They have been forced into that situation - they, and I are not going to quietly disappear. Land grab? Oxford University Estates would know all about that...

I make **** sure sure everyone I meet knows about the Oxford Mail and what it supports. Hopefully their pathetic circulation will dwindle to nothing.

Do you have even the slightest idea of what the Nazis did to the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s? If you did, I can't imagine you would make such crass comments about ethnic cleansing. Other than that, I broadly agree with you that this article does seem to be rather one-sided.

[quote][p][bold]lostfreedom[/bold] wrote:
Not surprised to see the Oxford Mail 'boater-bashing' again. The last comment in this despicable article claims there was 'no-one around to comment'. Not strictly true - what it means is they couldn't find an illiterate, druggie, half-wit to misquote and 'colour' the article in order to garner support for their fascistic point of view.
The Oxford Mail is certainly not interested in balanced reporting; or in well-reasoned arguments presenting little-known facts;or in reporting legitimate opposition to a situation deliberately contrived by Oxford City Council, Oxford University Estates and the Environment Agency. They consistently refuse to publish the other side of the story - I even went as far as complaining to the Press Complaints Commission about biased and propagandist reporting.
We have a disguised form of Nazi-style ethnic cleansing perpetrated by these three entities in collusion. There is a truckload of proof: legal advice taken by myself supports this view: Liberty agreed that there is a human rights case to answer.
What is happening in the mill-stream is the latest in a long, long line of protests by (perfectly legitimate) boat-dwellers opposed to the relentless destruction of their lifestyle (and they ARE entitled to live as they please), and abusive treatment by the authorities desperate to avoid duty of care to tax-paying members of the community. They have been forced into that situation - they, and I are not going to quietly disappear. Land grab? Oxford University Estates would know all about that...
I make **** sure sure everyone I meet knows about the Oxford Mail and what it supports. Hopefully their pathetic circulation will dwindle to nothing.[/p][/quote]Do you have even the slightest idea of what the Nazis did to the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s? If you did, I can't imagine you would make such crass comments about ethnic cleansing. Other than that, I broadly agree with you that this article does seem to be rather one-sided.xenarthra

lostfreedom wrote…

Not surprised to see the Oxford Mail 'boater-bashing' again. The last comment in this despicable article claims there was 'no-one around to comment'. Not strictly true - what it means is they couldn't find an illiterate, druggie, half-wit to misquote and 'colour' the article in order to garner support for their fascistic point of view.

The Oxford Mail is certainly not interested in balanced reporting; or in well-reasoned arguments presenting little-known facts;or in reporting legitimate opposition to a situation deliberately contrived by Oxford City Council, Oxford University Estates and the Environment Agency. They consistently refuse to publish the other side of the story - I even went as far as complaining to the Press Complaints Commission about biased and propagandist reporting.

We have a disguised form of Nazi-style ethnic cleansing perpetrated by these three entities in collusion. There is a truckload of proof: legal advice taken by myself supports this view: Liberty agreed that there is a human rights case to answer.

What is happening in the mill-stream is the latest in a long, long line of protests by (perfectly legitimate) boat-dwellers opposed to the relentless destruction of their lifestyle (and they ARE entitled to live as they please), and abusive treatment by the authorities desperate to avoid duty of care to tax-paying members of the community. They have been forced into that situation - they, and I are not going to quietly disappear. Land grab? Oxford University Estates would know all about that...

I make **** sure sure everyone I meet knows about the Oxford Mail and what it supports. Hopefully their pathetic circulation will dwindle to nothing.

Do you have even the slightest idea of what the Nazis did to the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s? If you did, I can't imagine you would make such crass comments about ethnic cleansing. Other than that, I broadly agree with you that this article does seem to be rather one-sided.

Score: -1

thomashenry
10:17am Thu 19 Jun 14

Miss Cynical wrote…

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.

[quote][p][bold]Miss Cynical[/bold] wrote:
This drives me insane.
I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.
I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.
Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?
I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.[/p][/quote]Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.thomashenry

Miss Cynical wrote…

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.

Score: -1

xenarthra
10:24am Thu 19 Jun 14

Miss Cynical wrote…

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Why would claiming this a community space be any more legal or moral than these people claiming it for themselves? The land belongs to somebody (as is the case for almost all land in the UK). The problem is that the authorities don't know who the owner is. But there almost certainly is one. Unless these people start causing a public nuisance, it's an entirely civil matter between the owner of the land and the squatters. If you can find some land that the owner has abandoned, you would indeed be able to rope it off and claim it as your own after 12 years. You ask why we don't all do this? Good question! Probably because it's not easy to find useful pieces of land that the owner no longer wants; and because you risk being sued if the owner does turn up and object. Moreover, you'll probably struggle to get planning permission to build anything useful on it. But if you're happy to put up with these downsides, then go for it!

[quote][p][bold]Miss Cynical[/bold] wrote:
This drives me insane.
I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.
I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.
Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?
I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.[/p][/quote]Why would claiming this a community space be any more legal or moral than these people claiming it for themselves? The land belongs to somebody (as is the case for almost all land in the UK). The problem is that the authorities don't know who the owner is. But there almost certainly is one. Unless these people start causing a public nuisance, it's an entirely civil matter between the owner of the land and the squatters. If you can find some land that the owner has abandoned, you would indeed be able to rope it off and claim it as your own after 12 years. You ask why we don't all do this? Good question! Probably because it's not easy to find useful pieces of land that the owner no longer wants; and because you risk being sued if the owner does turn up and object. Moreover, you'll probably struggle to get planning permission to build anything useful on it. But if you're happy to put up with these downsides, then go for it!xenarthra

Miss Cynical wrote…

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Why would claiming this a community space be any more legal or moral than these people claiming it for themselves? The land belongs to somebody (as is the case for almost all land in the UK). The problem is that the authorities don't know who the owner is. But there almost certainly is one. Unless these people start causing a public nuisance, it's an entirely civil matter between the owner of the land and the squatters. If you can find some land that the owner has abandoned, you would indeed be able to rope it off and claim it as your own after 12 years. You ask why we don't all do this? Good question! Probably because it's not easy to find useful pieces of land that the owner no longer wants; and because you risk being sued if the owner does turn up and object. Moreover, you'll probably struggle to get planning permission to build anything useful on it. But if you're happy to put up with these downsides, then go for it!

Score: 2

BML
11:06am Thu 19 Jun 14

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.BML

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.

Score: 0

Lord Palmerstone
12:07pm Thu 19 Jun 14

I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa
ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?

I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa
ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?Lord Palmerstone

I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa
ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?

Score: 3

Miss Cynical
3:01pm Thu 19 Jun 14

thomashenry wrote…

Miss Cynical wrote…

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.

Sorry, what do you mean 'get off my backside.' How dare you imply I am lazy when I work ridiculously hard to pay my way.

I won't stake a claim to land I don't own - because I believe it is better to leave it for the enjoyment of the public - who, judging by previous posts enjoy the area - rather than a select group of individuals.

[quote][p][bold]thomashenry[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Miss Cynical[/bold] wrote:
This drives me insane.
I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.
I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.
Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?
I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.[/p][/quote]Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.[/p][/quote]Sorry, what do you mean 'get off my backside.' How dare you imply I am lazy when I work ridiculously hard to pay my way.
I won't stake a claim to land I don't own - because I believe it is better to leave it for the enjoyment of the public - who, judging by previous posts enjoy the area - rather than a select group of individuals.Miss Cynical

thomashenry wrote…

Miss Cynical wrote…

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.

Sorry, what do you mean 'get off my backside.' How dare you imply I am lazy when I work ridiculously hard to pay my way.

I won't stake a claim to land I don't own - because I believe it is better to leave it for the enjoyment of the public - who, judging by previous posts enjoy the area - rather than a select group of individuals.

Score: 1

xenarthra
1:08pm Thu 19 Jun 14

BML wrote…

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.

Care to elaborate?

[quote][p][bold]BML[/bold] wrote:
To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.[/p][/quote]Care to elaborate?xenarthra

BML wrote…

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.

Care to elaborate?

Score: 0

xenarthra
1:22pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa

ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?

Indeed, they would have to show that they dealt with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to, for 12 years, and that no one else has done so (unless they transfer their rights to them). But encouraging others to trespass on the same land is perhaps not the best way to go about things. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa
ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?[/p][/quote]Indeed, they would have to show that they dealt with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to, for 12 years, and that no one else has done so (unless they transfer their rights to them). But encouraging others to trespass on the same land is perhaps not the best way to go about things. Two wrongs don't make a right.xenarthra

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa

ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?

Indeed, they would have to show that they dealt with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to, for 12 years, and that no one else has done so (unless they transfer their rights to them). But encouraging others to trespass on the same land is perhaps not the best way to go about things. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Score: 2

Miss Cynical
3:03pm Thu 19 Jun 14

xenarthra wrote…

Miss Cynical wrote…

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Why would claiming this a community space be any more legal or moral than these people claiming it for themselves? The land belongs to somebody (as is the case for almost all land in the UK). The problem is that the authorities don't know who the owner is. But there almost certainly is one. Unless these people start causing a public nuisance, it's an entirely civil matter between the owner of the land and the squatters. If you can find some land that the owner has abandoned, you would indeed be able to rope it off and claim it as your own after 12 years. You ask why we don't all do this? Good question! Probably because it's not easy to find useful pieces of land that the owner no longer wants; and because you risk being sued if the owner does turn up and object. Moreover, you'll probably struggle to get planning permission to build anything useful on it. But if you're happy to put up with these downsides, then go for it!

Hi, I don't know the details of the law, but personally, I would prefer it if this land were claimed for the benefit of the public - IE everyone in Oxford, rather than a select group of individuals.

[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Miss Cynical[/bold] wrote:
This drives me insane.
I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.
I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.
Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?
I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.[/p][/quote]Why would claiming this a community space be any more legal or moral than these people claiming it for themselves? The land belongs to somebody (as is the case for almost all land in the UK). The problem is that the authorities don't know who the owner is. But there almost certainly is one. Unless these people start causing a public nuisance, it's an entirely civil matter between the owner of the land and the squatters. If you can find some land that the owner has abandoned, you would indeed be able to rope it off and claim it as your own after 12 years. You ask why we don't all do this? Good question! Probably because it's not easy to find useful pieces of land that the owner no longer wants; and because you risk being sued if the owner does turn up and object. Moreover, you'll probably struggle to get planning permission to build anything useful on it. But if you're happy to put up with these downsides, then go for it![/p][/quote]Hi, I don't know the details of the law, but personally, I would prefer it if this land were claimed for the benefit of the public - IE everyone in Oxford, rather than a select group of individuals.Miss Cynical

xenarthra wrote…

Miss Cynical wrote…

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Why would claiming this a community space be any more legal or moral than these people claiming it for themselves? The land belongs to somebody (as is the case for almost all land in the UK). The problem is that the authorities don't know who the owner is. But there almost certainly is one. Unless these people start causing a public nuisance, it's an entirely civil matter between the owner of the land and the squatters. If you can find some land that the owner has abandoned, you would indeed be able to rope it off and claim it as your own after 12 years. You ask why we don't all do this? Good question! Probably because it's not easy to find useful pieces of land that the owner no longer wants; and because you risk being sued if the owner does turn up and object. Moreover, you'll probably struggle to get planning permission to build anything useful on it. But if you're happy to put up with these downsides, then go for it!

Hi, I don't know the details of the law, but personally, I would prefer it if this land were claimed for the benefit of the public - IE everyone in Oxford, rather than a select group of individuals.

Score: 12

The New Private Eye
7:00pm Thu 19 Jun 14

A few large projectiles thrown from my friends window overlooking the hooligans will sort them out. They have been disturbing his peace since they took their terrorist measures. They have no respect for the neighbours, and only care for themselves. Maybe they (the terrorist boaters) should not forget the hard working people that pay their local and national taxes to support their (the terrorist boaters) "homes"

A few large projectiles thrown from my friends window overlooking the hooligans will sort them out. They have been disturbing his peace since they took their terrorist measures. They have no respect for the neighbours, and only care for themselves. Maybe they (the terrorist boaters) should not forget the hard working people that pay their local and national taxes to support their (the terrorist boaters) "homes"The New Private Eye

A few large projectiles thrown from my friends window overlooking the hooligans will sort them out. They have been disturbing his peace since they took their terrorist measures. They have no respect for the neighbours, and only care for themselves. Maybe they (the terrorist boaters) should not forget the hard working people that pay their local and national taxes to support their (the terrorist boaters) "homes"

Score: 4

BML
7:54pm Thu 19 Jun 14

xenarthra wrote…

BML wrote…

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.

Care to elaborate?

I live in an unadopted road and opposite the row of houses and bungalows in that road is a strip of land where those who live in that road there park their cars. None of those pieces of land used to park cars features on any of the deeds. The strip of land, the unadopted road and the houses and bungalows are all on the piece of land that once belonged to a farmer who has not bothered about that strip of land. I asked a solicitor about the situation because I thought it worth tidying it up and quoted the 12 year thing to him. He said its much more complex than that and as he appeared to be turning away a fee I took his word.

[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]BML[/bold] wrote:
To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.[/p][/quote]Care to elaborate?[/p][/quote]I live in an unadopted road and opposite the row of houses and bungalows in that road is a strip of land where those who live in that road there park their cars. None of those pieces of land used to park cars features on any of the deeds. The strip of land, the unadopted road and the houses and bungalows are all on the piece of land that once belonged to a farmer who has not bothered about that strip of land. I asked a solicitor about the situation because I thought it worth tidying it up and quoted the 12 year thing to him. He said its much more complex than that and as he appeared to be turning away a fee I took his word.BML

xenarthra wrote…

BML wrote…

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.

Care to elaborate?

I live in an unadopted road and opposite the row of houses and bungalows in that road is a strip of land where those who live in that road there park their cars. None of those pieces of land used to park cars features on any of the deeds. The strip of land, the unadopted road and the houses and bungalows are all on the piece of land that once belonged to a farmer who has not bothered about that strip of land. I asked a solicitor about the situation because I thought it worth tidying it up and quoted the 12 year thing to him. He said its much more complex than that and as he appeared to be turning away a fee I took his word.

Score: 2

xenarthra
1:31pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

xenarthra wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa

ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?

Indeed, they would have to show that they dealt with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to, for 12 years, and that no one else has done so (unless they transfer their rights to them). But encouraging others to trespass on the same land is perhaps not the best way to go about things. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not possible to trespass on land from which no man has the right to exclude one.

But someone almost certainly does own the land. So trespass is possible. The only issue is that the authorities don't know who.

[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa
ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?[/p][/quote]Indeed, they would have to show that they dealt with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to, for 12 years, and that no one else has done so (unless they transfer their rights to them). But encouraging others to trespass on the same land is perhaps not the best way to go about things. Two wrongs don't make a right.[/p][/quote]Not possible to trespass on land from which no man has the right to exclude one.[/p][/quote]But someone almost certainly does own the land. So trespass is possible. The only issue is that the authorities don't know who.xenarthra

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

xenarthra wrote…

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

I may be missing something but since an application for registration of title after 12 years adverse possession would presumably fail if there was a multitude of claimants I suggest all other concerned parties also put up notices. One hopes that LostFreedom-GainedPa

ranoia and chums would then go and annoy someone else. Perhaps they could annexe the Beeches at Chipping Norton?

Indeed, they would have to show that they dealt with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to, for 12 years, and that no one else has done so (unless they transfer their rights to them). But encouraging others to trespass on the same land is perhaps not the best way to go about things. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not possible to trespass on land from which no man has the right to exclude one.

But someone almost certainly does own the land. So trespass is possible. The only issue is that the authorities don't know who.

Score: 0

xenarthra
1:34pm Mon 23 Jun 14

BML wrote…

xenarthra wrote…

BML wrote…

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.

Care to elaborate?

I live in an unadopted road and opposite the row of houses and bungalows in that road is a strip of land where those who live in that road there park their cars. None of those pieces of land used to park cars features on any of the deeds. The strip of land, the unadopted road and the houses and bungalows are all on the piece of land that once belonged to a farmer who has not bothered about that strip of land. I asked a solicitor about the situation because I thought it worth tidying it up and quoted the 12 year thing to him. He said its much more complex than that and as he appeared to be turning away a fee I took his word.

He probably had plenty of other work on already. The law isn't that complicated.

[quote][p][bold]BML[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]BML[/bold] wrote:
To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.[/p][/quote]Care to elaborate?[/p][/quote]I live in an unadopted road and opposite the row of houses and bungalows in that road is a strip of land where those who live in that road there park their cars. None of those pieces of land used to park cars features on any of the deeds. The strip of land, the unadopted road and the houses and bungalows are all on the piece of land that once belonged to a farmer who has not bothered about that strip of land. I asked a solicitor about the situation because I thought it worth tidying it up and quoted the 12 year thing to him. He said its much more complex than that and as he appeared to be turning away a fee I took his word.[/p][/quote]He probably had plenty of other work on already. The law isn't that complicated.xenarthra

BML wrote…

xenarthra wrote…

BML wrote…

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.

Care to elaborate?

I live in an unadopted road and opposite the row of houses and bungalows in that road is a strip of land where those who live in that road there park their cars. None of those pieces of land used to park cars features on any of the deeds. The strip of land, the unadopted road and the houses and bungalows are all on the piece of land that once belonged to a farmer who has not bothered about that strip of land. I asked a solicitor about the situation because I thought it worth tidying it up and quoted the 12 year thing to him. He said its much more complex than that and as he appeared to be turning away a fee I took his word.

He probably had plenty of other work on already. The law isn't that complicated.

Score: 0

BML
1:55pm Mon 23 Jun 14

xenarthra wrote…

BML wrote…

xenarthra wrote…

BML wrote…

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.

Care to elaborate?

I live in an unadopted road and opposite the row of houses and bungalows in that road is a strip of land where those who live in that road there park their cars. None of those pieces of land used to park cars features on any of the deeds. The strip of land, the unadopted road and the houses and bungalows are all on the piece of land that once belonged to a farmer who has not bothered about that strip of land. I asked a solicitor about the situation because I thought it worth tidying it up and quoted the 12 year thing to him. He said its much more complex than that and as he appeared to be turning away a fee I took his word.

He probably had plenty of other work on already. The law isn't that complicated.

"The law isn't that complicated."
If that is the case I would welcome a hint.

[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]BML[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]BML[/bold] wrote:
To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.[/p][/quote]Care to elaborate?[/p][/quote]I live in an unadopted road and opposite the row of houses and bungalows in that road is a strip of land where those who live in that road there park their cars. None of those pieces of land used to park cars features on any of the deeds. The strip of land, the unadopted road and the houses and bungalows are all on the piece of land that once belonged to a farmer who has not bothered about that strip of land. I asked a solicitor about the situation because I thought it worth tidying it up and quoted the 12 year thing to him. He said its much more complex than that and as he appeared to be turning away a fee I took his word.[/p][/quote]He probably had plenty of other work on already. The law isn't that complicated.[/p][/quote]"The law isn't that complicated."
If that is the case I would welcome a hint.BML

xenarthra wrote…

BML wrote…

xenarthra wrote…

BML wrote…

To say that after 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours is not accurate.

Care to elaborate?

I live in an unadopted road and opposite the row of houses and bungalows in that road is a strip of land where those who live in that road there park their cars. None of those pieces of land used to park cars features on any of the deeds. The strip of land, the unadopted road and the houses and bungalows are all on the piece of land that once belonged to a farmer who has not bothered about that strip of land. I asked a solicitor about the situation because I thought it worth tidying it up and quoted the 12 year thing to him. He said its much more complex than that and as he appeared to be turning away a fee I took his word.

He probably had plenty of other work on already. The law isn't that complicated.

"The law isn't that complicated."
If that is the case I would welcome a hint.

Score: 0

BML
1:58pm Mon 23 Jun 14

"The law isn't that complicated."
If that is the case I would welcome a hint. BML

"The law isn't that complicated."
If that is the case I would welcome a hint. BMLBML

"The law isn't that complicated."
If that is the case I would welcome a hint. BML

Score: 0

Oxfordaboard
1:11pm Tue 24 Jun 14

"Boat people make land grab" / Communities Land Organisation
( a not for profit company limited by guarantee )

Invite interested persons to an Open Meeting starting 8 pm at the Albion Beatnik Bookshop and Cafe tonight Tuesday the 24th of June 2014.

blog here: http://communitiesla
ndorg.wordpress.com/

Thank you.

"Boat people make land grab" / Communities Land Organisation
( a not for profit company limited by guarantee )
Invite interested persons to an Open Meeting starting 8 pm at the Albion Beatnik Bookshop and Cafe tonight Tuesday the 24th of June 2014.
blog here: http://communitiesla
ndorg.wordpress.com/
Thank you.Oxfordaboard

"Boat people make land grab" / Communities Land Organisation
( a not for profit company limited by guarantee )

Invite interested persons to an Open Meeting starting 8 pm at the Albion Beatnik Bookshop and Cafe tonight Tuesday the 24th of June 2014.

blog here: http://communitiesla
ndorg.wordpress.com/

Thank you.

Score: 0

BML
6:11pm Tue 24 Jun 14

"Not possible to trespass on land from which no man has the right to exclude one."
That appears to be logical but logic does not necessarily equate with truth.

"But someone almost certainly does own the land. So trespass is possible. The only issue is that the authorities don't know who."
The authorities thrive on the power of inertia and they could identify the owner if they were so inclined. I used to play around that area close to sixty years ago and thought then that it belonged to what was then British Railways before Major in an act of petulant vindictiveness privatised it when he knew they were being kicked out at the next election.

"Not possible to trespass on land from which no man has the right to exclude one."
That appears to be logical but logic does not necessarily equate with truth.
"But someone almost certainly does own the land. So trespass is possible. The only issue is that the authorities don't know who."
The authorities thrive on the power of inertia and they could identify the owner if they were so inclined. I used to play around that area close to sixty years ago and thought then that it belonged to what was then British Railways before Major in an act of petulant vindictiveness privatised it when he knew they were being kicked out at the next election.BML

"Not possible to trespass on land from which no man has the right to exclude one."
That appears to be logical but logic does not necessarily equate with truth.

"But someone almost certainly does own the land. So trespass is possible. The only issue is that the authorities don't know who."
The authorities thrive on the power of inertia and they could identify the owner if they were so inclined. I used to play around that area close to sixty years ago and thought then that it belonged to what was then British Railways before Major in an act of petulant vindictiveness privatised it when he knew they were being kicked out at the next election.

Score: 0

[deleted]
7:43pm Wed 2 Jul 14

[deleted]

[quote][p][bold]Miss Cynical[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]thomashenry[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Miss Cynical[/bold] wrote:
This drives me insane.
I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.
I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.
Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?
I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.[/p][/quote]Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.[/p][/quote]Sorry, what do you mean 'get off my backside.' How dare you imply I am lazy when I work ridiculously hard to pay my way.
I won't stake a claim to land I don't own - because I believe it is better to leave it for the enjoyment of the public - who, judging by previous posts enjoy the area - rather than a select group of individuals.[/p][/quote]get a job you ****taliban123

Miss Cynical wrote…

thomashenry wrote…

Miss Cynical wrote…

This drives me insane.

I work my backside off to afford a flat - I pay a mortgage, as well as all the bills required by law.

I accept you can't, and shouldn't get a home for nothing.

Shame this bunch of people don't share those values. How about we all just pick bits of land we quite fancy and rope off the city to everyone?

I hope that the public can end this ridiculous waste of time and Council tax payers' money by claiming this land as a dedicated community/green space with rights of way etc etc - not private property.

Then get off your backside and go and stake a claim to the unregistered land in question then. After 12 years of looking after it as your own, it might become yours. Stop whinging.

Sorry, what do you mean 'get off my backside.' How dare you imply I am lazy when I work ridiculously hard to pay my way.

I won't stake a claim to land I don't own - because I believe it is better to leave it for the enjoyment of the public - who, judging by previous posts enjoy the area - rather than a select group of individuals.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here